Thanks Jo.
Just for clarification, the editor's comment at the start of section 2.3 says "the following is not true", and then in the following text it mentions that "the DDWG held regular meetings with UWA and kept the UWA informed about the needs of the Vocabulary". I just want to note that this particular part of the paragraph is certainly true. What is untrue in the text is the statement that the "conclusion is a set of properties in the DDR Core Vocabulary [that] relate to semantics in the UWA ontology". This is now merely an aspiration. The timing of the work in the UWA suggests that it will not be possible to reliably bind the properties in the Core Vocabulary to semantics in the ontology. However, as the second paragraph indicates, we anticipate that this will happen eventually. To this end, we will actively promote to the UWA that the UWA ontology shall fully support the Core Vocabulary and that the details of the relationship will (eventually) be published.
Furthermore, we have presented in section 2.4 two terms: UserAgent and Device. These terms are initial aspects with which to diambiguate property terms of the Core Vocabulary. We have not presented any formal vocabulary for aspect terms, but have instead left it open for others to create more. It is quite possible that the UWA Ontology will provide a common means of defining aspects, but not within the planned schedule of publication of the Core Vocabulary.
For those unfamiliar with the idea of aspect, consider the following example: the "Vendor" is a property recognised in the Core Vocabulary. When you use a DDR API to retrieve the Vendor data for a particular delivery context, do you get details of the manufacturer of the device, or details of the software provider? To clarify this property you can ask for the "Device Vendor" or the "UserAgent Vendor". Similarly, you could ask for the "Device Display Width" or the "UserAgent Display Width", which would respectively provide the physical dimensions of the screen, and the available dimensions of the window. It would not make sense to ask for the "Device Markup Support" since this is a feature of the User Agent, not the hardware. The Core Vocabulary indicates the aspects that are associated with the various property terms. Readers of this mailing list are encouraged to read the document and consider these Associated Aspects to confirm that they make sense. Any comments should be submitted to this list.
The DDWG intends to agree a final version of this document in early March for formal publication. There will also be a specification of an API for DD repositories in which the concept of aspects is expected to be recognised. We expect this specification to be available shortly after the March meetings.
---Rotan.
________________________________
From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org on behalf of Jo Rabin
Sent: Mon 11/02/2008 23:19
To: public-ddwg@w3.org
Subject: Core Vocabulary 1f
This can now be found at
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/drafts/corevocabulary/080211.html
and differences from the previous draft can be viewed by following this
link
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2
FMWI%2FDDWG%2FDrafts%2Fcorevocabulary%2F080129&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.
org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FDDWG%2Fdrafts%2Fcorevocabulary%2F080211.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/35u3c6
Two issues remain outstanding.
1. The relationship to the UWA Ontology section is not correct in the
initial paragraph.
2. The IRI of the Core Vocabulary namespace is to be confirmed.
Jo